If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Now, don't get us wrong, we are very impressed with what Ford is doing lately. Honestly, we think BMW could learn a thing or two from them. Things like the factory supported supercharger setups for the Mustang 5.0 are amazing and the Ford Racing parts catalog makes the BMW performance parts offering look... well, pathetic. MotorTrend claims the Boss 302 laps Laguna Seca in 1:40.21 vs. the M3's 1:42.96. What were the tires used? Was the M3 a DCT? Were they tested on the same day? Are we to really believe the Boss 302 outlaps the Audi R8? Read below for the answers.

What Ford is doing with the Mustang is excellent and we commend them. The M3 is stagnant and is being routinely beaten now by the competition such as the C63 which Mercedes improved tremendously with the P31 package. BMW seems content to rest on their laurels and not do anything to upgrade the M3 which is a shame. BMW is going soft and Ford is delivering better and better performance products for better money. The same with Mercedes and Audi seems to be gearing up for an assault as well.

So what do we think of this? Well, the mustang was tested on R-compound tires, not apples to apples. Is the Boss 302 really about 4 seconds faster than the GT500? Car and Driver in the February 2011 issue tests the GT500 and the Mustang GT (not Boss) around VIR and the GT500 is almost 5 seconds faster on the same track, same day. The M3 being 2 seconds faster than the GT500 and the R8 almost a full second faster than the M3. Motortrend compared results from their database from different days with the M3 on street tires using a manual transmission but it is what it is. Congratulations for Ford for building a great car and it is about time for BMW to do something, anything, because we enthusiasts are more interested in lap times than efficient dynamics.

Now, don't get us wrong, we are very impressed with what Ford is doing lately. Honestly, we think BMW could learn a thing or two from them. Things like the factory supported supercharger setups for the Mustang 5.0 are amazing and the Ford Racing parts catalog makes the BMW performance parts offering look like... well, pathetic. MotorTrend claims the Boss 302 laps Laguna Seca in 1:40.21 vs. the M3's 1:42.96. What were the tires used? Was the M3 a DCT? Were they tested on the same day? Are we to really believe the Boss 302 outlaps the Audi R8? Read below for the answers.

What Ford is doing with the Mustang is excellent and we commend them. The M3 is stagnant and is being routinely beaten now by the competition such as the C63 which Mercedes improved tremendously with the P31 package. BMW seems content to rest on their laurels and not do anything to upgrade the M3 which is a shame. BMW is going soft and Ford is delivering better and better performance products for better money. The same with Mercedes and Audi seems to be gearing up for an assault as well.

So what do we think of this? Well, the mustang was tested on R-compound tires, not apples to apples. Is the Boss 302 really about 4 seconds faster than the GT500? Car and Driver in the February 2011 issue tests the GT500 and the Mustang GT (not Boss) around VIR and the GT500 is almost 5 seconds faster on the same track, same day. The M3 being 2 seconds faster than the GT500 and the R8 almost a full second faster than the M3. Motortrend compared results from their database from different days with the M3 on street tires using a manual transmission but it is what it is. Congratulations for Ford for building a great car and it is about time for BMW to do something, anything, because we enthusiasts are more interested in lap times than efficient dynamics.

It's mostly down to those R Compound tires, I went to a BMW CCA autocross two years ago and my instructor drove a 997 GT3, there was a completely stock 997 Carrera S on R Compounds that was TEN SECONDS faster per lap than the GT3 (the autocross course was around 1 mile, all 2nd and 3rd gear) it was actually the fastest car there that day but a huge margin. Now, a lot of that may have been down to the driver but like I said, the GT3 was piloted by an instructor.

Not to take away from the Boss, it's a sweet ride and I'd actually love to own the regular 5.0 Mustang, but faster than the E9x M3 it is not based on what I'm seeing.

It's mostly down to those R Compound tires, I went to a BMW CCA autocross two years ago and my instructor drove a 997 GT3, there was a completely stock 997 Carrera S on R Compounds that was TEN SECONDS faster per lap than the GT3 (the autocross course was around 1 mile, all 2nd and 3rd gear) it was actually the fastest car there that day but a huge margin. Now, a lot of that may have been down to the driver but like I said, the GT3 was piloted by an instructor.

Not to take away from the Boss, it's a sweet ride and I'd actually love to own the regular 5.0 Mustang, but faster than the E9x M3 it is not based on what I'm seeing.

I find it pretty lame they are comparing a Boss 302 and calling it an M3 killer to an M3 tested on a different day, that wasn't DCT, and on street tires. That is complete BS.

Why should the M3 get upgraded tires? Why should it use DCT? Why not use what the cars come with that way you can compare your DOLLAR value instead of mindless equating of performance.

The Boss 302 outperformed the cars on a track, was the M3 running on the same day? No, was it raining? No... Ok so then we can safely say that the mustang had an advantageous day but not "omfg mind boggling unfair wtf losing!!", in that case, even if it ran a 1:42 I would still be happy and BMW should still be sad.

I'm not upset the Mustang is fast as $#@!, I'm just saying a respectable publication should mention that 90% or more of that performance increase over the regular Mustang is coming from those tires, tires which you could stick on a regular Mustang 5.0 and see a huge performance increase. I got rid of the runflats on my 135i and I can corner a lot harder than before (scientifically measured to be approximately 1-1.3 $#@!tons more grip per second)

If anything, as an American I'm glad that America is finally building things we can be proud of again. It's about time. In fact I rode in the back of the new Mustang 5.0 and I have no doubt that in a straight line it's quicker than the E9x M3 and my chipped 135i. That thing was definitely impressive.

I'm not upset the Mustang is fast as $#@!, I'm just saying a respectable publication should mention that 90% or more of that performance increase over the regular Mustang is coming from those tires

EXACTLY. R-compound tires on one and street tires on the other don't make for a good comparison and they should know you don't leave that kind of information out unless trying to play up sensationalism.

It looks like they are. I actually like that the Mustang is winning. I am kind of tired of my M3 and I feel as if its getting outdated. Everyone is offering more for less. The m3 isn't what it used to be.